Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

whovian writes "Since IBM was ordered by the courts to show more code, they are now reported by Groklaw to have subpoenaed Intel to show 'all communications between Intel and SCO or Canopy about IBM, Unix or Linux, all meetings with either concerning IBM, Unix or Linux, and all contracts or other business relations, past, present, or future, between Intel and SCO.' The text is available at the website."

It will end when either the defense or the offense runs out of money. They will chase anybody and anything that had any contact with Linux in any way do drag out the proceedings until the money runs out.

From what I see, this was never intended to be a quick case. I just wonder who the heck is funding this new round of SCO legal action and how long can they keep it up.

Well, IBM made $3.04 billion last quarter so I can't see the defense running out of money anytime soon. SCO loss $6.5 million last quarter and apparently has less than $30 million in cash left. Of course, if you believe the conspiracy theory, then Microsoft made $4.75 billion last quarter. We could be here for awhile...

What are they trying to pull here? That Intel was possibly behind SCO's litigation? I doubt it..

Lawyers get to make lots of money on this, but historically Intel has wanted to see big UNIX fail so it would help Xeon sales. Intel has never really been xNIX friendly although some of it's technology came from chips like the Alpha that were designed for UNIX.

This is now hurting Intel in that the most popular, and probably the best processor to run Linux is an AMD Athlon 64. And with competition from other

I think Linux vendors should get together to sue and demand SCO tells them which code is at issue so that replacment code can be written. It would likely be better for the Linux community to code around the suspect areas rather than have this cloud hanging over everybody. SCO is holding us hostage via lack of specifics, not so much software code itself.

I think the community has been demanding this for so long we have just given up assuming that SCO will ever show/find any evidence.

It isn't about code. SCO is claiming a patright on Linux. A patright is like a patent in that it covers general ideas, but a copyright in that it exists from the moment of creation. Unfortunately for SCO, patrights are not recognized in any country I know of, only copyrights and patents are and neither of those do what SCO wants.

If IBM really had this "in the bag", why would they need to do such a huge step as issuing a subpoena to Intel for all that information?

No company wants to give up that much information, especially when much of it is not useful for the case and possibly damaging to Intel's business.

So far, Intel has been a relative outsider in all of this, and it is hard to understand what IBM is trying to get by bringing in a hardware manufacturer into this software matter. This may be a motion to subpoena, but even IBM's army of lawyers seems to be grasping at any straw now.

I personally don't think SCO has a very strong case, but watching IBM's actions, it seems that IBM is the one with the lack of firm ground.

I disagree. I don't think IBM would go off on a fishing expedition against a seemingly uninvolved party. My hunch is that IBM knows Intel has stabbed them in the back wrt SCO and wants to find out just how bad the damage is.

Remember, IBM turned the table on Intel back in the mid 90's by decided to manufacture several competing x86 products (some of them even branded IBM).. remember the Cyrix processors?

If Intel was in possession of some priveleged communication from IBM regarding SCO and Linux, and just h

I think a more probable explaination is something along the lines of the following:

Intel writes a lot of code in support of their hardware. A lot of which is esoteric and somewhat portable across the various *nixes. Intel more or less gives it away. Or might sell it to a company to SCO, but return it to linux at large for free, because people who roll their own, or just download iso buy hardware some of which is high margin. Some of the code ended up having a lot of *nix in common. And thus SCO turned

how is subpeonaing Intel a huge step for IBM. Rather than be bothered by the order to show more code, they basically said, "Oh, hey, we totally already showed you a bunch, but I think those guys over there may have some interesting stuff. I dunno check them out. Leave me alone."

IOW, it's a chewbacca defense. Flood the court with lots of information which may or may not be entirely relevant. IBM can afford to keep the dog and pony show going longer than SCO can, so they will keep looking for truckloads

Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider: (pulling down a diagram of Chewie) this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk, but Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now, think about that. That does not make sense! (jury looks shocked)

Why would a Wookiee -- an eight foot tall Wookiee -- want to live on Endor with a bunch of two foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense!

What they most likely want to establish is that SCO new Itanium was delayed and Intel notified them about the changing strategy of the processor.

SCO is claiming that the Monteray project was cancelled by IBM "out of the blue (Pun somewhat intended)" and due to the advent of Linux.
IBM canceled the Monteray project as they were allowed to do since the business reason for continuing was no longer there. They need to have Intel confirm this, information which Intel obviously is reluctant to provide

It's also worth considering contractual obligations. If Intel has agreements which they are contractually obliged to keep confidential, I would imagine that they couldn't divulge said information to IBM even if they really wanted to.

A court order to produce such information (probably under seal) would trump the confidentiality agreement.

Also, there may be business reasons why Company A doesn't want to appear too eager to acquiesce to the demands of Company B. A subpoena will preserve the fiction that 't

It seemed to me that this started out as an extortion racket, hoping that IBM would just cough up and pay. They didn't, and now IBM is striking back by bleeding them: they have far more resources to continue this than SCO has.

This theory would make more sense if it was IBM that has been dragging this whole thing out. It hasn't. IBM's been forthright with what the court has ordered. SCO's missed quite a lot of their deadlines for producing things and seems to be doing absolutely everything they can to dela

Like old reports of the imminent extinction of mainframes, any report of a similar fate for Windows is a tad immature.

"windows fanboys" - Perhaps I am just adding fuel to the flame or maybe you are to young to shave and don't see the "fanboy" in the mirror every morning. Either way your post makes for an excellent example of projection (definition 6b). [m-w.com]

Don't ask me what it means, because all it means to me so far is that IBM suspects or knows something we don't yet know but we will, I'm sure, eventually find out. You don't usually have to depose your best friends, though. They tell you whatever you need to know volitionally, because they want you to win, and they'll do a declaration for you. You subpoena folks who are not eager to tell you what you wish to learn, or who wish to appear so.

Have you ever thought that this might be done as a favour for intel as opposed to intel being on the other side? Intel might just be saying "I don't want to appear to get involved, so just depose the required evidence".

How did this get +4 Insightful? Obviously you've never dealt with a court case more complicated than a traffic ticket.

When two companies discuss business it is done under Non-disclosure Agreements. Now I'm sure SCO and Intel had meetings about ia64 (since SCO was working on an OS for it and all) If IBM just went to Intel and said "hey tell us what SCO said back then" and Intel complied then SCO could sue Intel for NDA breach. Unlike their current suits they'd actually win that one, too.

In a previous job we were in a similar position -- one of our customers was being (quite justifiably) sued and the other party needed information relevant to the case from us.

We compiled the information but we couldn't just give it directly to them because that would breach our agreements with our (now former) customer. Instead we made a list of everything we had and had OUR LAWYERS write up a subpoena based on that.Then we handed it to them and said "please have this served on us". As soon as it had a judge's signature on it we faxed them the stuff they wanted within minutes.

Basically in civil litegation ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING that you find out from third-party corporations goes through the subpoena process whether they're friend or foe. Don't assume just because Intel got one from IBM that they must be on SCO's side or anything.

Does IBM taking the Xbox II away from Intel count as making a big dent? I believe IBM sees it's Power archtecture (possibly accompanied by Sony's Cell as in the PS3) as the natural successor to the x86 line, and is therefore at war with Intel.

So far the consensus here was that it is Microsoft behind the whole SCO debacle -- but what if IBM knows better (and I guess I'd bet my $10 on THEM knowing better;-) ).... What do they know that I do not?

IBM knows that Intel knows all about Itanium, its roadmaps, schedules, and delays. IBM knows that Intel has a good idea of what they told SCO about Itanium schedules and delays. Given that SCO is now down to claiming that any funny business about purloining code went on during Project Monteray, on which IBM and SCO cooperated, and that that was largely about AIX on Itanium, details about Itanium and what SCO knew about it are important.

There are perfectly straightforward, perfectly innocent explanations for why IBM would want information from Intel, and oddly enough they fit the current major issues of the case far better than any wild and extravagant theories about Intel conspiring to bring IBM down.

So what does IBM know that you don't? IBM know what they're talking about.

Lots of posters here seem to think that once the judge finds out who's "behind" SCO that something will happen. But why would there? Suppose they find a document where an Intel executive advises SCO to sue IBM? That's not against the law at all.

It's interesting for us to find out who's behind all of this, but not to the judge. These documents are only going to be needed because IBM thinks there's something there about licensing etc. deals. Not about helping out SCO or whatever.

so you can bet that both Intel and Microsoftwould like to see SCO Group succeed in court.Sun is pushing Sparc and AMD processors, IBMis pushing (hard) with PPC processors, and evenHP is courting AMD processors -- all threewith their UNIX and GNU/linux.

Microsoft courted, and then dumped supportfor microcomputers based upon the Alpha, MIPS,and PPC processor. Intel's many mis-stepswith the Itanium (ia64) processor may well bean issue that IBM would like to raise withthe court, especially as regards IBM's shortlived alliance with SCO.

IANAL, but no matter how much code IBM revealsin court against SCO Group, SCO's main attackscenter on (1) ownership of derivative works,and (2) legality of the GPL. Either couldseriously damage F/OSS if the case goes to SCO.

I do not have very much faith in the USA'ssystem of justice these days, particularlysince the DoJ let MSFT off the monopoly hookso readily (after regime change).

Come on, you can't tell me that MS/Intel/Dell are still the only players in the PC market. I don't remember the last time I bought Dell or Intel, and I buy a great deal of PCs for a significant company.

OK, So SCO starts a frivolous lawsuit to try and become a household name before it goes belly up. Now, in the crosshairs, and with far more power and finances at their disposal, IBM calls in some other top-dogs to drag this out into a dirty courtroom scrap that promises to last even longer.
Stalling tactics hoping SCO runs out of money? Maybe, but more likely, like most of these software-based lawsuits, it's just to add enough confusion to the mediation to keep anyone who wasn't actually there from ever s

To paraphrase another post. It is in IBM's interest to crush SCO and even better to let all other potential SCO copycats watch the leagal tourture and eventual slaughter of SCO.

Another common assumption seems to be that because IBM went through the courts to get info from Intel therfore it follows that Intel must be pissed off because IBM is attacking them. The fact is even if Intel knew something and desperately wanted to give IBM the info they would have to ask IBM to get it via the court. Any dealings

With very few exceptions, no one who will post in this thread has any authoritative knowledge of business analysis or high-level computing industry politics. I can also predict that not a single soul who posts in this thread will have a good understanding of the legal nuances of IBM's most recent actions in the SCO case.

So please, don't waste our time with useless conjecture, predictions, and "what-if" scenarios. Because really, what's going on here is just mental masturbation. Move along.

You know if enough companies subpoena each other maybe we'll end up with "open source" hardware (not necessarily GPL) but force all the companies to give up their trade secrets and consumers reap all the benefits! MWUahahahaha!

Yeah, except everything that is remotely a "trade secret" will get subpoenaed and discovered under a protective order, which means only the judge and the lawyers will see the really interesting stuff...

My original IBM PC/XT came with a technical reference manual which contains the complete BIOS assembler source code and complete circuit diagrams for every board in the computer. Since it was constructed using OTS ICs, someone single-minded enough could construct a whole PC based upon those specifications - and I am sure that the whole PC industry owes it to IBM for making available those specifications and hence giving rise to all the clones... The tricky part for the cloners is to 'clean-room' design a clone without infringing on IBM's copyright - an issue which IBM did take to court on more than one occasion.

That PC is long gone but I still have the original IBM technical reference manual. Its a nice hardcover ring-bound book. They don't make manuals like they used to!

You can still get Dave William's DOS Technical Reference Manual at http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/freedos/files/d ocs/ [planetmirror.com] which contains a very technical reference to the BIOS inside. (Note that it is now located inside the FreeDOS documentation, as it was used as a reference in creating FreeDOS)

Not sure if you're aware of this or not, but I'm not sure that Intel can subpoena AMD, here. I'm pretty sure that non-parties to a suit can't just go around subpoenaing documents and depositions from other non-parties. Now, if Intel were to intervene in the suit or be impled as a party, that would change things.

It like a bunch of people have pursued some man made rules or laws that rely on the earth being flat. But now that the earth really isn't flat, these rules, these laws are having a problem holding up. A lack of integrity of the rules/laws of which so many have beeing following.

So yeah, its really not supprising the exposure of the web of distortion that has spread thru out the industry.

Imagine what it would be like to see from the POV of one having clairity of the issue. Imagine how those following and supporting such distortion would be preceived by such a POV.

Is that SCO/Caldera is Canopy group, and Canopy group has made almost all of its money by suing huge and successful companies. I'm not sure on their exact record, but I know they've done this sort of thing at least 2 or 3 times already. They are pretty good at doing this, so I don't like to see anything "going their way" at all... hopefully IBM can keep it on course, and kill them dead soon.

IBM is a very big big company, they have a lot of leverage power with lawyers and with other companies. I am not following this as much as I should but it looks like IBM is pushing SCO into a corner and will use every arsenal to make a win. If IBM was going not going to win this court case they will settle. IBM will win it and it will be the end of SCO, we will then see slashdot posts about people buying SCO office furniture for $50.00 at there parking lots.
IBM is a east coast company and they can leverage all the big wig lawyers to fight for them there is no way SCO can win.
take care
-A
End result lawyers go home rich, SCO sells furniture and IBM's laptops go in to suspend using ACPI under Linux.

.... and all contracts or other business relations, past, present, or future, between Intel and SCO....

Notice the "future".... does this include the document that they are going to send through Intel in June of 2005 that will admit that the purpose of this entire project was to pump up the stock price and that Intel doesn't have to worry.

Or perhaps is SCO going to claim that since their code ran on Intel chips that means that the chips are tainted and therefore all of Intels IP belongs to SCO.

From Jun 2003 [iwethey.org] So, how did Linux become so capable of scaling beyond the heights of
the old UNIXs. More importantly, who helped put what where?

As with the marketing of cars and TVs, it is the vendor's high end
leading edge models which sells the standard models, from which most of
the sales and profit is made. For the enterprise server market today,
that high end is multi-headed 64-bit SMP
systems, never mind the fact that single 32-bit processors provide more
than enough power to do most jobs. For all intents and purposes, it is
the ability of the core OS to scale on 64-bit SMP systems that defines
"enterprise scalability". Other enterprise feature are effectively just
add-ons, which in the case of Linux, have been freely contributed from
many vendors and developers.

Since version 2.0, Linux was more than just a 32-bit x86
operating
system. With the insistence and assistance of Jon "Maddog" Hall, Linux
was already ported to the 64-bit Alpha processor, which delivered great
performance and stability. Just like the traditional AT&T UNIX
source base, the ownership of the Alpha chipset passed though many
hands, suffering the same fate of a thousand cutbacks. Even Alpha's
"native" OS, VMS, has been ported to Itanium by HP/Compaq.

Since 1997, Intel has been promoting the Itanium line as the
inevitable successor for every other server processor on the market.
Despite the early vaporware status, Intel has been very successful, at
least in terms of marketing. With the exception of its mainframe
systems, even IBM ships Itanium systems that directly compete with
their own Power processors.

For what The SCO Group has to offer with SCO Unixware 7,the
Itanium line is the only 64-bit option. The problem for The SCO Group
is that modern Linux can compete so well in that same market that the
value of Unixware is rapid deteriorating to a historical curiosity. I
suspect that The SCO Group (at that time called Caldera) executives
were well aware of this before they acquired the server part of Old SCO
in August 2000, or they would have known, if they spoken to the right
executives and technical staff.

So how did Linux get scale on Itanium? The SCO Group would have
you
believe it was all IBM's doing, which isn't as interesting as the real
story. The web of history weaves to encircle and entangle a much more
diverse group of conspirators, including many of The SCO Group,
Caldera, and old SCO's own former executives and other employees.

In October 1998, IBM, Old SCO and Sequent teamed up to
collectively develop parts of Unixware and AIX into scalable
64-bit-ready ports for IBM's Power processors and Intel's AI64, or
Itanium, under the banner of Project Monterey. But by then, it was
already too late.

In February 1998, well before even the first prototype IA-64
chips were available, a skunkworks team at HP, with some assistance
from Intel, began the work toward porting Linux to IA-64. By October
1998, around the same time that IBM, Old SCO and Sequent had finished
negotiations, HP had completed the build toolchain. By January 1999,
the Linux kernel was booting on an IA-64 processor simulator, months
before the actual Itanium processor was available. In March 1999, at
Intel, Linux was booting on the actual Intel Itanium processor. In
April 1999, CERN joined the project for the port of the GNU C library
and VA Linux Systems joined the project and rapidly improved the
stability and performance.

In May 1999, the Trillian Project was founded and HP, VA Linux and
Intel collectively provided their source patches to the Linux kernel for the Itanium port under the GNU general public license.

I work in litigation and subpoenaing someone with something as ridiculous as this is a great way to keep the other party busy and give yourself some extra time. In addition to that, it adds costs to the other party's litigation.

Sometimes, you can just keep subpoenaing and they won't be able to keep up. And generally when that happens, they will want to settle.

This has the makings of a good soap opera. All they need to do is sprinkle in a little sex and murder and we've got an award winning mini series on our hands. I think they should write this thing before it finishes though. It would be more interesting to see someone's interpretation of all this crap and how they think it will turn out rather than to watch a dramatic reenaction.

IBM filed this motion on Jan 19. The actual subpoena was signed by IBM's attorney on Jan 13. SCO's motion for more discovery was granted Jan 18.

The blurb for this story is a little misleading. IBM planned to do this and may have even already had the subpoena executed by the time SCO's motion was granted. The timing was coincidental not causal.

For all the speculation about IBM vs. Intel, it seems to me that this post [slashdot.org] had the most sensible explanation of what's going on here. The SCO case is about Project Monteray now, which was an AIX on Itanium endeavour. It makes perfect sense to drag Intel in to discuss what SCO was told by Intel about Itanium, and its various delays.

All this jumping to conclusions about IBM and PPC slugging it out with Intel is unbelievably silly given this other explanation that fits the facts (and the case) far better. Can we cut the stupid conspiracy theories?

There are a lot of other ways to drag the case on and further drain SCO's finances. Involving an outside entity doesn't make sense, especially since doing so via supeona isn't exactly likely to promote good relations with Intel.

I think there's a bit more to this than we've seen... but if anything when the dust is cleared it will be very interesting to look back and say "ahhhh, I understand now"